According to the American Presidency Project, over 1166 executive orders have been issued in the past 25 years (Peters and Woolley). That number increases exponentially as one begins to account for memoranda, unnumbered executive orders, and other presidential directives not included in the original calculation. Since the founding of America, executive orders have been used by nearly all who hold the office of President. Todd Gaziano, a former Supreme Court Clerk, discusses the historical uses of executive powers in his article, “The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives.” He speaks of George Washington’s use of executive directives three months after he was sworn in as President of the United States. Washington directed the leaders of the military to prepare reports that conveyed an accurate description of the state of the nation. Four months later, he issued a second executive order declaring Thursday, November 26, 1789, as a day for thanksgiving (273-274).
Thousands of executive directives have been issued in the 256 years since Washington’s first use of the executive order. Some of these orders include Abraham Lincoln’s issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing thousands of slaves across the North and South, and the desegregation order issued by Harry S. Truman in 1948, which commanded the cessation of segregation in the military.
Despite the many instances of executive power being used for good, it is important to note that not all uses of executive power have positive repercussions. The book Calling the Shots: The President, Executive Orders, and Public Policy discusses Barack Obama’s appropriation of executive powers. Quoting Obama, the book says, “We are not just going to be waiting for legislation in order to make sure that we’re providing Americans the kind of help that they need … I’ve got a pen … and I can use that pen to sign executive orders and take executive actions and administrative action” (qtd. in Gitterman 7). Obama sought to follow through on his promises to the American people as efficiently as possible. He saw executive orders as a tool to accomplish the job. This bolstered the idea that there should be an excess of power in a centralized government amongst politicians.
In contrast to the purported need for excessive power in the executive branch that centralized government creates, self-governance suggests that the power remains with the people. In response to a query concerning the orderly conduct of members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints—one of the most successful examples of unity through self-governance—Joseph Smith says, “I teach them correct principles, and they govern themselves (Stoddard).” Smith taught the members of the church true principles and fostered an environment of unity through self-governance.
Similarly, the writers of the United States Constitution sought to inspire unity through self-governance. They deliberately outlined powers reserved to each of the branches of the government—Judicial, Legislative, and Executive—and specified the duties of administration necessary to those powers. The powers and duties reserved to the executive branch include the appointment of the president as Commander-in-Chief of the military, the power to make treaties, the power to appoint individuals to offices within the executive branch, the power to pardon, and the power to execute law in the United States. Following the ratification of the Constitution, the use of executive powers remained relatively constant until the early nineteen hundreds. During the early years of the twentieth century, executive powers were slowly expanded by those in office until the election of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933. According to the American Presidency Project, during his time in office, Roosevelt issued over 3500 executive orders, resulting in massive expansions in executive branch operations and influences (Peters and Woolley).
The rapid expansion of executive powers during Roosevelt’s presidency was dangerous and consolidated power in the executive branch. Despite many of the projects and tasks undertaken during Roosevelt’s presidency benefiting our lives today, the methods of accomplishing these tasks are questioned by historians. Though they have been frequently misused, executive orders have accomplished good as well. Gaziano shares an example of this as he discusses historical uses of presidential directives. On December 25, 1868, President Andrew Jackson issued the Christmas Proclamation and pardoned all who participated in the Civil War, directly or indirectly (Gaziano 279). This order was grounded in the executive power of pardon, as listed in the Constitution. It aided in the healing process as the United States sought to become united again following the Civil War. Another instance of proper and powerful use of executive powers occurred in 1948, when Truman issued Executive Order 9981, which states, “there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin (“1948”).” This was a significant step in the fight towards equal rights for all people and has had a lasting impact on the nation.
Like the Desegregation Order, the use of executive power today greatly affects the nation. Presidents across the political spectrum have used executive power to further agendas and policies. One instance to consider is Bill Clinton’s use of executive orders. Clinton used presidential directives to accomplish a wide variety of tasks. While some of Clinton’s executive orders were based on good policy, many of them were not. His use and abuse of executive powers shaped the way the executive branch operates. Similarly, Donald Trump has used executive orders to accomplish his agenda and enact his policies. From blanket pardons and immigration policies to national emergencies and tariffs, Trump has shaped the executive branch in extreme ways.
Trump’s use of executive powers has created feelings like those created by Obama’s statement. As a result, Americans are awakening and speaking out. They feel that executive orders infringe on rights of self-governance, as executive orders often bypass Congress, are an abuse of executive power, and undermine democratic processes. A movement has arisen across the nation as individuals lobby for the removal of a large portion of executive powers. Many fear executive action because of the abuse of executive powers historically.
Concerning the fear surrounding executive orders, David Driesen, a professor of constitutional law at Syracuse University, says, “executive orders bear an uncomfortable resemblance to the decrees that dictators use to rule non-democratic countries. Accordingly, promulgation of such orders sometimes raises anxiety about presidential usurpation of democratic norms (1).” The resemblance that abuse of executive powers has to the decrees of dictators raises anxiety that has greatly affected the state of the nation. Many feel that Trump is acting as a dictator, and justifiably so. This fear isn’t unique to Trump’s presidency. It was also prevalent during the Biden administration and other administrations throughout history. Despite the growing fear of the executive branch and executive powers amongst some Americans, many still feel that the executive powers are necessary.
Those who feel that executive orders are necessary find that executive orders provide efficiency in the government, allowing for decisive leadership and improving the ability and speed of response by the government to national emergencies. The article “The Unitary Executive in the Age of American Authoritarianism,” written by Martin Redish, discusses the rationale behind some of these feelings. It says, “The first rationale is that the Article II Vesting Clause confers on the president all executive power. . . The second is that the president is imbued with inherent powers to act… when the president determines that circumstances so warrant (470).” These arguments take what is written in the Constitution and expand it to more than what was intended. This can be dangerous and requires examination and comparison to achieve a proper understanding of the issue.
By contrasting the arguments that executive powers are necessary with the arguments that most executive powers should be done away with, it becomes clear that executive orders are justifiable despite the issues and dangers they can pose. This clarity allows one to recognize the benefits of limited, but still capable, executive powers. Limited but capable executive powers are grounded in the framework of the Constitution. While executive powers have been expanded over time, Article II of the Constitution grants the president 10 specific powers and outlines his duties. Checks and balances—clauses written into the Constitution that help manage the distribution of power—are also placed and provide a means to reduce presidential overstep. Some of these checks include the power given to Congress to impeach the president, and the power to challenge the actions and orders of the president given to the Judicial Branch. The citizens of America are also a check, as they have the right and responsibility to hold the President responsible through lobbying, voting, and being an active member of the community.
This safety net of checks and balances will prevent the abuse of executive powers if used correctly. Redish writes that the Constitution framed a government with enumerated powers, with three coequal branches. The structure of the Constitution creates a separation of powers and is an immunization against tyranny. Each of the branch’s powers are well-defined and separated because “’ power is of an encroaching nature’ and must be ‘effectually restrained from passing the limits assigned to it (482).’”
Though subject to misinterpretation, the restraints placed on the executive branch are clear, and the executive powers are necessary. Historical necessity in crises alone justifies the need for executive orders to be used in times of great need. While some of these instances are controversial, many provide a lens through which one can find the aforementioned justification for executive orders. In response to the events of September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush issued “Homeland Security Directive 1.” This directive was meant to create a way to protect America from further threats. Its text states, “Securing Americans from terrorist threats or attacks is a critical national security function (United States 1).” This echoes the call given each president in the oath of office to “faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of [their] ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States (U.S. Constitution).”
Executive orders have been and can be used for good. With checks and balances in place, executive orders can streamline government processes productively and healthily. Executive directives, especially those specific to outlined functions of the executive branch, provide practical efficiency that is necessary to the function of a government for a body of people like America. This is important to remember during one’s consideration of the danger but necessity of the executive order.
While they can be dangerous, executive orders and powers are essential. However, they must be kept in check. Executive Orders and their use reflect the tension between efficiency and democracy. The Constitution places checks upon presidential powers and was inspired by God. America must trust in these bounds. Both the continued unchecked use of executive powers and the absolute removal of executive powers change the Constitution. To do so would remove important checks and balances. These checks and balances help keep America and its government good. America is great because America is good. Americans must stand for what is right and preserve the legacy of the Constitution. Doing so will prevent the usurpation of power by the executive branch.
Works Cited
“1948: Executive Order 9981: Desegregation of the Armed Forces.” Encyclopedia of War and American Society, edited by Peter Karsten, vol. 3, SAGE Reference, 2005, pp. 1134–1135. Gale eBooks, link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3453200451/GVRL?u=byuidaho&sid=ebsco&xid=8ac37408. Accessed 1 Dec. 2025.
Driesen, David M. “President Trump’s Executive Orders and the Rule of Law.” UMKC Law Review, vol. 87, no. 3, March 2019, pp. 489–524. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=7f4f9a8e-2a81-3496-ae76-8bf668650930. Accessed 1 Dec. 2025.
Gaziano, Todd F. “The Use and Abuse of Executive Orders and Other Presidential Directives.” Texas Review of Law & Politics, vol. 5, no. 2, 2001, pp. 267. openurl.ebsco.com/contentitem/aph:5151715?sid=ebsco:plink:crawler&id=ebsco:aph:5151715&crl=c. Accessed 30 Nov. 2025.
Gitterman, Daniel Paul, and ProQuest (Firm). Calling the Shots: The President, Executive Orders, and Public Policy / Daniel P. Gitterman. Brookings Institution Press, 2017. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=ed724f2a-49b9-374a-b253-161b3c72c60e. Accessed 30 November 2025.
Peters, Gerhard, and John T. Woolley. “Executive Orders.” The American Presidency Project. Edited by John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters, Santa Barbara, CA, 1999–2025. www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/executive-orders. Accessed 30 Nov. 2025.
Redish, Martin H., and David M. Epstein. “The Unitary Executive in the Age of American Authoritarianism.” Wake Forest Law Review, vol. 59, no. 2, Mar. 2024, pp. 451–99. EBSCOhost, research.ebsco.com/linkprocessor/plink?id=28a74ad9-364e-3807-a368-4b5e435e32a3. Accessed 1 Dec. 2025.
Stoddard, James F. and L. Hannah Stoddard. “10 Largely Forgotten, Timeless Principles, in Sustaining Leaders.” , 2021, josephsmithfoundation.org/10-largely-forgotten-but-timeless-principles-in-sustaining-leaders/. Accessed 30 Nov. 2025.
United States, “Homeland Security Presidential Directive (1).” US Newswire, 30 Oct. 2001, p. 1008303n1429. Gale In Context: College, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A79551698/CSIC?u=byuidaho&sid=ebsco&xid=1e02d00e. Accessed 1 Dec. 2025.
U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress. constitution.congress.gov/constitution/. Accessed 30 Nov. 2025.
